Objective truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter mymamamary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: thread title “Objective truth” and a truth value spectrum

Objective as a real “word” and objective reasoning as a real “process” by definition does not allow a truth value spectrum of any kind.

Common sense should recognize that “objective truth” by definition is not dependent on persons’ evaluations according to some person’s value spectrum. The adjective “objective” applied to the word “truth” by definition means that the “truth” exists before a person is born and after a person dies; therefore, value spectrums remain the “toy” of people living at the moment.

Actually, a truth value spectrum is born from the relativism theory. M. Webster calls this theory a type of knowledge relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing. God is objective truth because His being is not limited by a value spectrum devised by creatures.

Blesings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
I would tend to think that when you say “God exists”, it’s a packaged deal. Even if one of the characteristics described is false the the God under discussion does not exist. Although some of the details are true, the package as a whole is false and is thus false.
 
This is an example of an Objective Truth.

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

Rejoice in the mystery of human nature!
 
ReapReason said:
Why is it an objective truth?
Click to expand...
It meets the requirements I stated in my earlier posts.
Please accept my apology for this short reply. I am needed elsewhere. When I can return, I will go back through my posts and pull out the requirements unless you beat me to them. As I recall, there were not that many requirements. And most likely, there will be some questions.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
grannymh said:
God is objective truth because His being is not limited by a value spectrum devised by creatures.
Click to expand...
I think you are talking about a different meaning of “truth” here that isn’t related to propositional calculus and models.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
No, think more along the lines of people having imperfect understandings of God. Better yet, let me grant for a moment that Catholicism is the form of Christianity most closely aligned to God’s will. Let’s also assume that understanding is not quite perfect, but 90% of the way there. Given some other set of denominations (methodist, baptist) and religions (Islam, Hinduism, Scientology) each one may have some things that they got right and wrong. Rather than throwing outnsomething that isn’t 100% correct in all its understandings we could look at them on the truth value spectrum and say some are more right/wrong than others. That’s what i am talking about with truth value.
Click to expand...
While we can approach a single dogmatic teaching with a black/white mentality, that’s not the case in religion. Religions deal in a multitude of dogmatic teachings which must be looked at as a group since they are bundled together as a group. They must ALL be true for the religion to be considered true, and they must all be false for the religion to be considered false. If even one teaching is false, no matter how tiny the error, but even one teaching is true as well, then the words true and false on their own, as an all or nothing proposition, don’t paint an accurate picture of the objective reality. Falsehood must not be accepted, but truth must always be accepted regardless of its source. The use of “truth value”, as you call it, makes perfect sense in a situation where both truth and falsehood are present.

The way the Catholic Church deals with this is to not refer to other religions as true or false, but to use language which takes into account this “truth value”. She uses the phrase “the fullness of truth”. The Catholic Church teaches the fullness of God’s revealed truth, by nature of the fact that all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church are true. Other religions do not teach the fullness of God’s revealed truth, by nature of the fact that they are incorrect on at least one dogmatic teaching. By phrasing it in that manner, the false can be rejected but the truth still affirmed.

Protestant Christians teach many things which Catholics also teach, Jews and Muslims share our teachings to a lesser extent, polytheistic religions such as Hinduism even less, religions such as Buddhism which are more philosophy than religion still less, and stuff like Satanism doesn’t teach much that is true beyond the fact that Satan exists. But whatever they teach that is true MUST be affirmed as truth. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it.

Your own post that I quoted contains different “truth values”. The Church would not agree with the stated assumption for the sake of argument that her dogmatic teachings are anything less than 100% truth. She would also not agree with the implicit assumption that our understanding of God is based solely on human reason alone without the aid of faith. But those two things don’t make the rest of what you say suddenly become false.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I think it’s only a problem for those that take a rather polarized view of truth values; either something is true or its not. I don’t think it is as much of a problem for those that use some of the gradiated model of truth value. Under these views an objective proposition can have have degrees of truth to it.

As a kind of crude example given a car that is painted teal the statement “the car is blue” would be of a higher truth value than “the car is red.” Or given an object that is 53mm thick the statement “the object is 50mm thick” is of higher truth value than “the object is 20mm thick.”
Click to expand...
OK…I haven’t read all of the responses…but I just wanted to say regarding this post that if an object is 53mm, then yes, 50mm is closer to the truth, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is NOT the truth.

I guess there wasn’t any real point in posting this…I don’t know if this would change anything, but I guess this illustrates the point that either something is true or it is not. The only true statement about the length of the object is that it is 53mm; nothing else is true.

I suppose this might not matter, since this is only one example.
 
bobballen_18 said:
OK…I haven’t read all of the responses…but I just wanted to say regarding this post that if an object is 53mm, then yes, 50mm is closer to the truth, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is NOT the truth.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that discussion is also in some of the above responses. When evaluating things as 2VL (two valued logic, true or false, 0 or 1, right or wrong) with the principle of bi-valence I would agree with you. But for some one that makes use of one of the NVLs (Where N>2) the statement in the OP does not pose a problem for them.
 
grannymh said:
This is an example of an Objective Truth.

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

Rejoice in the mystery of human nature!
Click to expand...
ReapReason said:
Why is it an objective truth?
Click to expand...
There are two essential presuppositions for the objective truth of the statement
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
  1. Knowledge of human nature is extremely important.
  2. The particular “knowledge” of human nature is based on paragraphs 355-368 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
One can enter the Catechism at this link for paragraph 355.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

The objective truth is the worthiness.

The worthiness exists independently of any person’s evaluation or opinions. The worthiness of the human person herself or himself exists regardless of the persons actions. This is because “worthiness” is based on human nature which is an unique unification of both the material world *and *the spiritual world. Our decomposing anatomy can be destroyed by other humans; but, our spiritual soul is immortal. Thus, worthiness remains.

Worthiness is also based on the fact that God, the Creator calls each human person to share in His life through knowledge and love. The spiritual soul, directly created by God, is what determines worthiness. The action of God creating the spiritual soul of each human person occurred before we were born and will continue after we are born until the end of the world.

Our thoughts, experiences, intelligence, memory, feelings, etc., cannot change or delete another person’s soul. The human person’s worthiness (because of the spiritual, rational soul) cannot be altered by other humans. Therefore, the human person is worthy of profound respect is an objective truth.

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.
 
grannymh said:
There are two essential presuppositions for the objective truth of the statement
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
  1. Knowledge of human nature is extremely important.
  2. The particular “knowledge” of human nature is based on paragraphs 355-368 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
One can enter the Catechism at this link for paragraph 355.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

The objective truth is the worthiness. The worthiness exists independently of any person’s evaluation or opinions. The worthiness of the human person herself or himself exists regardless of the persons actions. This is because “worthiness” is based on human nature which is an unique unification of both the material world *and *the spiritual world. Our decomposing anatomy can be destroyed by other humans; but, our spiritual soul is immortal. Thus, worthiness remains.

Worthiness is also based on the fact that God, the Creator calls each human person to share in His life through knowledge and love. The spiritual soul, directly created by God, is what determines worthiness. The actions of God creating the spiritual soul of each human person occurred before we were born and will continue after we are born until the end of the world.

Our thoughts, experiences, intelligence, memory, feelings, etc., cannot change or delete another person’s soul. Therefore, the human person’s worthiness (because of the spiritual, rational soul) cannot be altered by other humans.

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.
Click to expand...
I am well aware of what you have presented here. But it does not get to the root of my question in a metaphysical context. I already know why we have objective value. But I want to know why **you **think the actions of God determines the objective value of Gods nature. What is it about God nature that determines the value of his creation.

If by God’s actions you mean to say that God has subjective value for us, and that is what makes us valuable; then I cannot agree, since that is no different from the subjective values of any ordinary human being who looks towards an object apart from his or her self for pragmatic satisfaction or self glorification. Subjectively valuing something does not mean that the true value of that thing is objective. Not to mention the fact that to suggest that God participates in that kind of subjective value system would require God to be potentially moved in to having emotional attachments to objects. Which would mean God is moved by other objects. That would be a metaphysical imperfection on the part of God.

So what I am asking you is what is it about God’s nature that makes us objectively valuable in the moral sense of the word. You cannot simply say that it is Gods act of creation; it is not enough to quote Catholic theology on these matters. It is a philosophical question.
 
ReapReason said:
I am well aware of what you have presented here. But it does not get to the root in a metaphysical sense. I already know why we have objective value. But I want to know why you think the actions of God determines the objective value of Gods nature. What is it about God nature that determines that value of his creation.

If by Gods actions you mean to say that God has subjective value for us, and that is what makes us valuable; then I cannot agree, since that is no different from the subjective values of an ordinary human being who looks towards an object apart from his or her self for pragmatic satisfaction or self glorification. Subjectively valuing something does not mean that the true value of that thing is objective.

So what I am asking you is what is it about God’s nature that makes us objectively valuable in the moral sense of the word. You cannot simply say that it is Gods act of creation; it is not enough to quote Catholic theology on these matters. It is a philosophical question.
Click to expand...
Note: You posted before I completed editing my post.

I appreciate your questions regarding the nature of God which is a subject of* both* philosophy *and *theology. However, I do not intend to go there.

My edited post 49 suffices as an answer to your question.

Blessings,
granny

Truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
grannymh said:
Note: You posted before I completed editing my post.

I appreciate your questions regarding the nature of God which is a subject of* both* philosophy *and *theology. However, I do not intend to go there.

My edited post 49 suffices as an answer to your question.

Blessings,
granny

Truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
Click to expand...
No it does not suffice as an answer to my question, and it is a shame that you cannot see the importance of answering the question correctly.

I asked a metaphysical question; not a theological one.

You also posted before I completed editing my post. Please feel free to read it again.
 
mymamamary said:
I saw a meme on Catholicmemes.com

It had the troll face and the captions said something like this:

“Is the fact that there are no objective truths objectivley true?”

I agree. However for all relativists out there, this is bad news. That means that the statement “There are no objective truths” is a lie, and there has to be more Objective truths.

Anyone agree?
Click to expand...
There is an entire chapter on “Objective Truth” in Peter Kreeft’s Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics. It’s a great read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top